Close games are what make the NFL exciting and I don't think it should discredit a teams accomplishments.

I think it goes without saying that the definition of sneaking into the playoffs is how the Packers got into the playoffs in '03 by the Cardinals last second upset of the Vikings. That's sneaking in.

Winning two consecutive win or (basically) go home games to close out the season, one of which against a rival who admittedly said they didn't want you in the playoffs out of fear is unquestionably not sneaking in.

As you said, the '10 Packers earned their spot in the playoffs. And I don't believe the same could be said for the '03 Packers playoff team.

Kind of a side thought, I wonder if parity hadn't set in thoroughly enough in the '96 season and that's why there were so many lopsided scores? I believe there were only 3 or so years of free agency at the time.

And what does it mean that the losers of the Championship games were both expansion teams, the Panthers and Jaguars who founded only one year prior?

It is obviously all opinion, but I would take the 90s over the 2000s, though I do think the NFL is rising again. The level of play in college the last four or five seasons has been outstanding.

I also take exception to the assessment that the Cowboy and 49er dynasties were over in 96. The 49ers won 12 games in 96, 13 in 97, and 11 in 98. They were very much a powerhouse football team. Keep in mind; the refs made a bad call in a Monday Night showdown at Lambeau. Don Beebe made 50-plus yard TD catch and run in that game, but he stepped out of bounce. That play should not have counted and had the officials made the correct call, the 49ers would have won that game. They would then have had home field throughout the playoffs with GB as the No. 2 seed.

I understand there is a lot of coulda, shoulda, and woulda involved, but the author applied the exact same logic toward the Devin Hester punt return touchdown.

Perhaps GB beats SF in the postseason either way. Personally, I think they do, but then again, GB is the reason why the 49ers don’t have a sixth or maybe seventh SB right now. In my view, that says more about the Packers than the 49ers.

96 dominated its competition and they were a more complete team. Personally, I don’t believe that is debatable. The 2010 Packer offense also finished 9th in offensive yards and 96 finished 5th. Granted, 2010 gained 200-plus more yards, but I would argue 96 had better average field position and played during a time when a defense actually was allowed to play defense. There were no helmet-to-helmet controversies then. The five-yard rule wasn’t called near as much. In other words, the 96 offense didn’t have the benefit of playing in today’s offensive oriented NFL. For the record, that also should tell you just how special the 2010 Packer secondary was.

96 had the No. 1 scoring defense and offense. They scored over 28 ppg, which is more than the 2010 team. They allowed 13 ppg, which is two fewer than 2010. They are only the second Super Bowl team to accomplish that feat.

The other was the 1972 Miami Dolphins.

They also had amazing special teams. Chris Jackie made one of the more clutch kicks in Packer history in that 49er Monday night game. I have yet to see Mason Crosby make a kick like that during those circumstances.

Also, the Packer return game was never better in the team's modern history. Imagine Devin Hester on the current Packers’ roster. The 96 team had that with Desmond Howard.

At the end of the day, I suspect the debate will come between a Packer team in waiting and 96. I am hopeful it will be in 2011 because things are align for that to happen. In fact, things are align for 2011 to surpass even those 96 Packers. The upside is certainly greater for sustaining success. I think that is something the 2010 Packers have on the 96 team, which the writer points out well.

Don Beebe made 50-plus yard TD catch and run in that game, but he stepped out of bounce. That play should not have counted and had the officials made the correct call, the 49ers would have won that game.

That's very interesting, do you have the play by play or video or anything that could support this? I'm not trying to call you out or nothing, I just don't remember the play that well. I don't remember the 50yd TD being the final play of regulation or what happened after it. Other than the Packers won, lol.

I'm trying to find anything on it and failing ...

Edit, okay I must be looking at the wrong game because that 59yd TD happened in the 3rd quarter.

If you're just matching the authors line of thinking, okay, gotcha, but if you really believe the Packers wouldn't have won if they got the ball where (allegedly) Don Beebe stepped out of bounds, there's no way in hell anyone can say with a straight face the Packers wouldn't have won ... there was still an entire quarter to play yet of which they were within range of scoring a TD.

I made a similar statement about Devin Hester's TD and the ensuing possessions the Bears had within the 20.

The play Porky talked about....he's right. Although i THINK it was that Beebe was touched while down, and the play should have been stopped there. Instant replay would have corrected that.(So we did luck out).Either way, i do recall that one, that we got a HUGE break.

The play Porky talked about....he's right. Although i THINK it was that Beebe was touched while down, and the play should have been stopped there. Instant replay would have corrected that.(So we did luck out).Either way, i do recall that one, that we got a HUGE break.

Either way, I don't buy that a play in the 3rd quarter decided the game, especially since I can't find out where Don Beebe was allegedly downed or out of bounds. I'm not disputing he wasn't because I don't remember, I'm disputing the notion a play in the 3rd quarter decided the out come. :)

I'm pretty sure the out of bounds play was when he was with Buffalo.The one when he was a Packer, he was touched while down, then got up and just ran to the endzone. I think he knew he was down, but in a "heads up" move, decided "why NOT run it in, just in case?"

I'm pretty sure the out of bounds play was when he was with Buffalo.The one when he was a Packer, he was touched while down, then got up and just ran to the endzone. I think he knew he was down, but in a "heads up" move, decided "why NOT run it in, just in case?"

The being touched while down, that vaguely sounds familiar. I can remember the play far more with that description, just don't recall any controversy over it. Sucks I can't find a video of it.

I definitely remember the play and it was being touched while down. He should have been ruled down but got up and ran it in for a score anyway. Can't remember when during the game it happened; I'm thinking right before half. If you have the 1996 season video I'm pretty positive it is on there. I'd watch it to find out but I only have it on VHS and don't have a VHS player. Darn technology keeps marching on.

If the argument is for which super bowl team is better, I'd have to go with '96 mainly because of thier defense. That line was ferocious; Jones-Dotson-Brown-White. I do think the secondary might have problems keeping up with the passing attack though.

If the argument is for which super bowl was better, I'd pick XLV. Just didn't expect it so much and also I really enjoyed watching the run through the playoffs with my son and daughter.

Just seen the Don Beebe play. If he had been touched, he'd have been downed at about the 30 or so yard line. And he wasn't down by contact because at the time of contact he didn't have possession of the ball.

Just seen the Don Beebe play. If he had been touched, he'd have been downed at about the 30 or so yard line. And he wasn't down by contact because at the time of contact he didn't have possession of the ball.

That ends that debate.

I wasn't making the point you thought I was. You made a mountain out of ice cream. Isn't that the saying?

Nevertheless, using the play as an example was more about applying the author’s thought process in regards to Devin Hester’s punt return to that play. In other words, the 96 Packers were just as close to being a No. 2 seed as the 2010 Packers were, when using that logic, though I don't particularly subscribe to that myself.

My main point, however, is disregarding the 49ers after 1994, as the author does, is an absolute inaccurate assessment of the next four seasons of the NFL. The Packers are the primary reason the 49ers don’t have a sixth and possibly seventh Super Bowl trophy. The two games in 96, and 97 NFC Championship game, had an impact on those two seasons. Writing the 49ers off as an expired dynasty is not fair in my opinion.

As far as the ice cream goes, it is worth noting that the only offensive TD the Packers scored that night was the Don Beebe catch and run. There is no guarantee they punch it in, especially with the way their red zone offense was working. Of course, Green Bay could’ve scored for all we know, but there is not guarantee one way or another. Personally, I don’t think they would have, because I have that game on DVD, and there was a common theme to it. Nonetheless, perhaps the Packers were due for a breakthrough.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.